De Palma (2016)

Such a frustrating disappointment

Excellent, a Must See

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

A documentary film exposes the life and career of Hollywood director Brian De Palma who began making films fifty years ago.This film tells a fine history, not just of De Palma's films or films in general, but also of the various historical events that influenced movies throughout the decades. Any history of the period that began in the late 60s and continued through the 70s is always welcome. De Palma mentions that there was much more freedom in those days before the business lobby took over Hollywood in the 80s and continued dominance ever since.There is enjoyable nostalgia in seeing clips of De Palma's films (which include a young, pre-stardom Robert De Niro) and those of other films that influenced him. These clips are the only alternative to this movie's main source of storytelling: De Palma himself narrating his history. While he is engaging and never dull as a speaker, the documentary feels incomplete as it lacks interviews from others - whether they be specifically for this film or older film clips from friends and foes.At one point, the renowned director mentions that he was condemned as misogynist for depicting violence against women. While he defends himself well, it would have been more interesting to hear directly from the other side. In fairness, male characters were also brutally treated in his films. His thrillers pushed the boundaries for violence. Personally, I've never been a fan of this kind of film-making even though I've enjoyed some of De Palma's films. Some of his films may stand out in movie history but I don't think the genre of excessive violence is worth glorifying.

Think about it. A film like Carlito's Way was made only 23 years ago. I cannot imagine a film like it getting made today. It cost $30 million in 1993. It would cost approximately $50 million to make today (I used % increase in CPI). I don't think any studio today would finance a $50 million gangster flick with little or no action. Unless it was made by Tarantino or someone.And even if it were to get made today, who would play Pacino and Sean Penn's roles? Tom hardy? Ryan gosling? Di Caprio? The actors today are simply terrible.I guess I went a little off topic. This documentary had De Palma talking us through some of his early socially conscious Greetings era films to his erotic films and also the big studio films. De Palma is like a really candid and jovial character who nonetheless exudes a certain toughness. It was interesting to note that he spoke at length about the movie composers that he worked with. De Palma worked with the very best of movie composers - Bernard Herrmann, Pino Donaggio, Ennio Morricone etc.He also gave an important advice to young filmmakers - most filmmakers do not make the films they want to. Certain films come their way and they make the best of it. He gave a few examples of how he would be working on one screenplay or a novel but then he would be offered something else to make and he would abandon the project he was working on. I thought that was very interesting.

How much one enjoys DE PALMA depends almost entirely on one's opinion on the work of Brian De Palma or De Palma himself. For those who like De Palma's films, this new documentary will be a real treat. For those who dislike or are relatively indifferent to De Palma will most likely be completely bored throughout the entire running time. This is a documentary made for a very small audience: De Palma fans and general film fanatics.The whole movie consists of De Palma going through his complete filmography, talking about each one of his films with clips spliced into the mix. There are no additional interviews, which would be a problem if De Palma wasn't such an engaging speaker. In terms of modern day filmmakers, De Palma, even after a career that spans several decades, is still of the most fascinating personalities in the film industry, something that is clear throughout almost every minute here. While I won't say there's never a dull moment, a good 85% of De Palma's stories are entertaining and insightful. Even the stories he tells about his biggest flops like The Bonfire of the Vanities adaptation and Wise Guys starring Danny Devito are fun to hear. De Palma doesn't disown any of these productions, but he is quite candid about why certain ones weren't well received critically or commercially.The only real flaw is that a few of De Palma's films here get too much commentary, while a few gets too little commentary. Some of De Palma's most recent movies like The Black Dahlia and Passion are barely mentioned at all. Even if they are among his least popular films, it's disappointing that they aren't discussed enough here given the treatment all the other films seem to receive. Even with this imbalance,this is something that's worth watching more than once, just like the De Palma's films themselves. 8/10

This is perhaps the most mundane film ever about a most colorful filmmaker.Watching "De Palma," one gets the sense of a home movie more than a professional retrospective of a director's career. The interviews are insightful, and he tells some good stories -- but he is filmed and edited so ineptly the stories lose much of their impact. The film clips are also choppy and badly cut -- that is, badly incorporated. De Palma's famous long takes are sliced and diced and jammed into the narrative without ever allowing one the pleasure of just enjoying the man's craft. His narration also seems rushed and jammed together. I read that this film was put together from 30 hours of interview footage. It shows. One can tell his many hours of speaking have been condensed and shortened and jammed into 100 or so minutes. And because only a single camera angle was used, the editors apparently re-sized the image occasionally just to create a bit of variety.It's also very much of an insider's film. De Palma speaks of friends and colleagues using nicknames the general public isn't aware of. And yet we're supposed to understand. For example, most audiences don't know who composer Bernard Herrmann is, and fewer still know his industry nickname, "Benny." When De Palma starts referring to "Benny," it's not clear who he's talking about. This could have been cleared up in the editing -- but apparently the film's two editors -- who have never edited a documentary before -- and the directors, who have never directed a documentary before -- felt clarity wasn't important.The film is at its worst near the end, when De Palma's final words, summing up his life as a director, are played off-camera. This clearly illustrates the inexperience and ineptitude of both directors and editors. It's a pity someone with a fraction of De Palma's talent and skill wasn't entrusted with telling the life story of one of our greatest filmmakers.